In our fourth AI Openness & Equity Policy Leadership Cohort session, Michelle Thorne from the Green Web Foundation joined us as we explored climate justice in the context of AI. Specifically, our discussion centered around the question: how does AI intersect with climate justice, and what can it mean for public interest technology?
Image: Michelle Thorne, https://michellethorne.cc/about/
Here are some top reflections from our session:
AI will solve the climate crisis… right?
AI tools are expanding across sectors, but little attention is paid to their environmental and social costs. Meanwhile, in the midst of all the AI buzz, one myth persists above all: that AI itself will solve the climate crisis. This is a deliberate tactic to delay any meaningful climate action, known as “predatory delay”.
Even as some AI infrastructure becomes more energy efficient, Jevons Paradox reminds us that gains in efficiency often lead to greater overall use. In other words, the more efficient we get, the more we consume. This means that even "greener" AI systems can still accelerate energy demand at scale, and we shouldn't be quick to dismiss their climate impact, no matter how efficient they may become.
Relatedly, a cohort member shared an example of how AI can undermine the public benefit of climate-positive efforts: Ireland is producing record amounts of renewable energy, but all of that is being diverted into data centers instead of powering homes, effectively cancelling out the public benefit of what could have been a more climate-positive shift.
The narrative that AI will save us is tech-solutionist, distracting from the present-day harms of AI systems and overemphasizing their potential future benefits. Michelle aptly called this mindset a case of “chronic potentialitis.” One possible reason it persists is because AI feels intangible, even as its material impacts are here: from water and energy use to land degradation and mineral extraction.
But these costs are rarely part of the dominant narrative, and that’s by design. Obfuscation serves the companies building, selling and profiting from these systems. This too, is a tactic to create a sense of hopelessness through moral shaming, where all the onus of climate justice is on the shoulders of individuals, rather than holding the companies driving these impacts accountable.
From crisis to change: pushing for structural accountability
Climate is not a single issue in isolation - it touches everything. When we approach climate justice through an intersectional lens, connecting across sectors and movements, we can unlock more durable paths to change. One example raised by the cohort was how the global semiconductor industry, with its high pollution levels, was outsourced to regions like Taiwan, which have less political leverage and face slower energy transitions. Infrastructure like chip fabs and data centers are welcomed for short-term economic gain, often with little regard for long-term environmental and social consequences.
This speaks to the heart of the matter: AI development is not only a climate issue, it’s geopolitical, social, and deeply entangled with digital colonialism. These issues don’t exist in silos, and neither should our strategies. To confront them, we need to break down barriers between movements and build new alliances grounded in shared purpose.
We also discussed the prevalence of greenwashing, much like the openwashing we’ve explored throughout this cohort (a term, incidentally, coined by Michelle). Too often, genuine climate advocates are sidelined, while extractive industries rebrand themselves as part of the solution. Bridging movements through solidarity, fostering distributed leadership, and investing in collective organising can counter these dynamics and enhance our collective impact.
Reclaiming “innovation” for the public good
Another point that stuck with us in our conversation was that we can and should reclaim the “innovation” narrative. While streams of public and private funding continue to flow in the direction of greater AI infrastructure expansion, those who resist, or question the expansion are often seen in opposition to innovation, progress, or competitiveness. But innovation can also emerge in the ways we organise, build power, and push for systemic change. It can happen in movements, in cross-sectoral learning, and in collective action. It doesn’t need to come from a lab, a boardroom, or be defined by market logic. Redefining innovation in public interest terms is one way to challenge dominant narratives and reshape what progress looks like.
The cohort discussed what it would mean to draw inspiration from other social movements and innovative practices that have affirmative visions. For the justice advocates operating within the current AI-saturated environment, that means reclaiming optimism and actively creating, building, and sharing futures which are climate positive.
Rethinking accountability, regulation, and enforcement
Cohort members reflected on a question relating to fines: do they actually hold Big Tech accountable for climate (and related) harms? The example of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came up: companies regularly violate the law and treat fines as a cost of doing business. For real accountability, fines alone aren’t enough. There must be systemic consequences, such as changes to business models, limits or changes imposed on how products and services are offered, or even abolition of certain exploitative services.
Where does openness and equity fit in?
That’s where openness can be powerful, but only if it redistributes power. As Michelle reminded us, openness isn’t meaningful unless it truly challenges ownership structures.
She also highlighted the value of the “7 Generations Thinking”, an indigenous tradition that encourages decision-makers to consider the long-term impacts of our choices, seven generations ahead. While the climate crisis is often framed as a future threat, the truth is, many communities have been living with its impacts for generations. Looking forward is vital, but so is looking back. To build a better future, we must honour past struggles, learn from past victories, and refuse dystopian tech as the default future.
Next week…
We’ll dive into the intersection of security, openness, and democracy with Bruce Schneier.
This post was co-written by Nitya Kuthiala.
Photo credits: CC BY-SA 2.0 by Asar_mz